You are on page 1of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA





MARCIE FISHER-BORNE, for )
herself and as guardian ad )
litem for M.F.-B., a minor, )
et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 1:12CV589
)
JOHN W. SMITH, in his official )
capacity as the Director of the )
North Carolina Administrative )
Office of the Courts, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
ELLEN W. GERBER, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 1:14CV299
)
ROY COOPER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )


ORDER

This court previously entered an order staying further
proceedings in these cases pending termination of the stay
granted in McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14A196 (Fourth Circuit Case
No. 14-1167). This court directed the parties to notify the
court within twenty (20) days of the denial of the petition for
a writ of certiorari or the sending down of the judgment of the
Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 111 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

Supreme Court. (1:12CV589 (Doc. 108 at 3); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 63
at 3).) This court is aware that the Supreme Court has issued an
order denying the petition for a writ of certiorari in McQuigg
v. Bostic, No. 14-251, ____ S. Ct. ____, 2014 WL 4354536 (Mem)
(Oct. 6, 2014) (Fourth Circuit Case No. 14-1167). As a result,
notification from the parties is not necessary, and the parties
are relieved of that obligation.
The parties have previously filed briefs in response to
this courts July 30, 2014 order requesting briefing as to the
effect of the Fourth Circuits opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer,
760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) and appear to agree the opinion in
Bostic will constitute binding precedent in this court. (See,
e.g., 1:12CV589 (Doc. 104 at 5); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 57 at 5)
(Given the similarity between these challenged laws, the State
Defendants herein have consistently represented to this Court
that the Fourth Circuits holding in Bostic would likely control
the analysis of North Carolinas marriage laws.) and 1:12CV589
(Doc. 105 at 1); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 58 at 1) ([T]he Fourth
Circuits decision in Bostic v. Schaefer . . . controls the
result here. The Virginia marriage ban declared
unconstitutional in Bostic is indistinguishable from the North
Carolina prohibitions challenged in this matter . . .).)
Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 111 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

The Fourth Circuit in Bostic affirmed a Virginia district
court order finding that Va. Const. Art. I, 15-A, Va. Code
20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex
marriage or prohibits Virginias recognition of lawful same-sex
marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. Bostic v.
Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 484 (E.D. Va. 2014), aff'd sub nom.
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). The district
court then granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and
preliminary injunction, and enjoined enforcement of the
designated provisions of Virginia law. Id.
In light of the parties prior briefings, it would appear
Plaintiffs are entitled to an order granting the pending motions
for preliminary injunction (1:12CV589 (Doc. 75); 1:14CV299 (Doc.
3)) as to this issue now that the Fourth Circuit has issued its
mandate. However, there are at least two issues that remain for
resolution by this court; first, what further action by this
court is necessary with respect to those issues arguably
resolved by Bostic and second, how this court should proceed
with respect to a resolution of the adoption laws at issue in
this case.
In light of the foregoing, this court orders that the
parties file a status report, without argument, detailing the
following matters: (1) whether the parties agree with this
Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 111 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

courts suggestion as to the effect of Bostic on this case as
set out herein; (2) whether any discovery is required as to
either of these cases prior to proceeding to summary judgment;
(3) what issues remain for resolution by this court in each of
these cases with respect to the challenged adoption laws; and
(4) what the parties suggest in terms of additional briefing on
any remaining issues.
These status reports shall be filed within ten (10) days of
the entry of this order. No additional briefing shall be
permitted prior to the filing of the status reports unless
ordered by this court, and the stay shall remain in place as to
all other matters at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the 6th day of October, 2014.



_______________________________________
United States District Judge

Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 111 Filed 10/06/14 Page 4 of 4

You might also like